The linguistic authority of dictionaries, especially Duden, must come to be viewed with uncertainty. When trademark lawyers can influence dictionary definitions and a dictionary editor can permit an alteration of a definition, the believability of language bibles is bound to suffer.It's a simple fact that to google and googeln are the common ways of saying 'to search the internet', and typically but not necessarily using google.com. (In fact, when I suggest to students that they look around for something on the web, I hope they try a variety of search engines, but I still use that same verb.)
Anybody remember when Dan Quayle, then a US Senator, tried to pass a resolution to change the dictionary meaning of 'Hoosier'? That was stupid and was widely recognized as such. If publishers like Duden cave in here, this seems like a potential threat to producing accurate references works. Is this just one of those situations where Duden made a business decision not to stand up for what is clearly right?